Rwanda Case Law

UBUSHINJACYAHA v MBARUSHIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPA/GEN 00006/2019/CA

The court held that the defendant was provided legal representation in accordance with the law, was not tried twice for the same offence as the Gacaca judgment was set aside before trial, and that prosecution for international crimes was lawful under both international and domestic law, regardless of the date of enactment. The court found the evidence, including testimony from convicted persons and hearsay, was lawfully admitted and corroborated. Convictions for both genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide, and for genocide and extermination as crimes against humanity, were upheld as the o…

Source excerpt

• Genocide
• Crimes against humanity
• Extradition
• Right to fair trial
• Evidence law
• Non bis in idem

Read case analysis

Re MIRONKO

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00005/2023/SC

Article 81, paragraph one, of Law no 22/2018 is not inconsistent with the Constitution regarding jurisdiction, right to appear before a competent court, right to appeal, public hearings, or prohibition of self-judging. However, Article 81, paragraph two, is inconsistent with Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution as it denies the accused the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge, the right to defence, and the right to legal representation. The unconstitutional portion is declared without effect and replaced with a procedure ensuring these rights.

Source excerpt

• Due process
• Contempt of court
• Right to fair trial
• Judicial independence
• Public hearings
• Right to legal representation

Read case analysis

Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2022/SC

The requirements imposed on private security companies by Law Nº 016 bis/2020 are not discriminatory because private security is a distinct business category with unique public safety implications, justifying differentiated regulation. The police's oversight role is constitutionally and statutorily grounded. Administrative appeal to the Minister does not violate the right to a fair hearing, as judicial recourse remains available. Regulatory requirements regarding reporting, technology, and internal rules do not infringe privacy or freedom of thought, as they are reasonable, lawful, and serve…

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Right to fair trial
• Private security regulation
• Administrative remedies
• Privacy

Read case analysis

Re MURANGWA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC

The Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to search and seizure rules, holding that warrantless searches and prosecutorial warrants with safeguards were constitutional.

• Search and seizure
• Presumption of innocence
• Separation of powers
• Right to privacy
• Right to fair trial
• Search-and-seizure

Read case analysis

Re KAMANZI (INCONST)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2022/SC

The Supreme Court held that the differentiation in grounds for review between persons convicted by Gacaca courts and those convicted by ordinary courts is based on objective and reasonable criteria, justified by the special context, objectives, and procedures of Gacaca courts. This does not amount to prohibited discrimination or denial of fair justice under Articles 15, 16, or 29 of the Constitution.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Right to fair trial
• Genocide cases
• Gacaca courts
• Review of criminal judgments

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. SHUJUN N’ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPA 00034/2022/CA

The Court of Appeal set aside an immediate-arrest order, holding that new and compelling reasons distinct from pre-trial detention grounds were required.

• Pre-trial detention
• Immediate arrest upon conviction
• Right to fair trial
• Appeal procedures
• Criminal-procedure
• Pre-trial-detention

Read case analysis

PROSECUTION v. MUGESERA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RP/GEN 00003/2019/CA

The Court of Appeal upheld Mugesera Léon’s conviction for public and direct incitement to genocide and persecution, while setting aside a separate hatred conviction.

• Genocide
• Crimes against humanity
• Incitement to genocide
• Persecution
• Right to fair trial
• Presumption of innocence

Read case analysis

Re. KABASINGA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC

The Supreme Court held that Article 133(5) of Law Nº 68/2018, which imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of reduction for mitigating circumstances in cases of defilement followed by cohabitation, is unconstitutional. The provision violates the right to fair trial and judicial independence as guaranteed by Articles 29 and 151 of the Constitution, because it denies judges the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances and to impose proportionate sentences based on the facts of each case.

Source excerpt

• Mandatory sentencing
• Judicial independence
• Right to fair trial
• Mitigating circumstances
• Proportionality of sentences

Read case analysis